AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard. Perused the record.
This appeal has been filed under section 19 of the Act 1986 in challenge to the Order dated 27.09.2018 of the State Commission in complaint no. 67 of 2017.
Learned counsel for the appellants (complainants) submits, on instructions, that the complainants want refund of the amount deposited by them with the respondents (builder co.) i.e. Rs.20,34,338/- with reasonable interest, lumpsum compensation and cost of litigation.
The learned counsel for the builder co. submits, on instructions, that, in order to put a period to the lis, the builder co. is willing to refund the amount of Rs.20,34,338/- deposited by the complainants with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the respective dates of deposit till actual realization along with lumpsum compensation of Rs.50,000/- and cost of litigation of Rs.50,000/- within eight weeks. She also requests that this may not be treated as a precedent.
The learned counsel for the complainants submits, on instructions, that the terms being offered by the builder co. are acceptable to them.
In the wake of the above submissions, the instant appeal no. 77 of 2019 is disposed of with the direction that the builder co. shall refund an amount of Rs.20,34,338/- to the complainants with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the respective dates of deposit till actual realization along with lumpsum compensation of Rs.50,000/- and cost of litigation of Rs.50,000/- within eight weeks from today, failing which the State Commission shall undertake execution, for ‘enforcement’ and for ‘penalty’, as per the law.
This Order has been made on consent. As such the decision in this case shall not be treated as a precedent.
The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to the parties in the appeal and to their learned counsel as well as to the State Commission immediately. The stenographer is also requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately.